Social Science In Natural Resource Management Systems

Marc L Miller, Richard P Gale, Perry J Brown

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9780367303082
  9780367287627
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9781000311853
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book is about the conduct and contributions of applied social science. It represents the beginning of a new intellectual tradition in applied social science and its purpose is to foster an exchange among the variety of social scientists who are concerned with natural resource policy.

II
Roles of Science

Introduction to Part II

Marc L. Miller
Richard P. Gale
Perry J. Brown

Social science in natural resource management systems can be discussed in terms of mandate and status. Three cross-referenced mandates have generated normative variations on the role of applied social science. A legal mandate is found in natural resource legislation. An institutional mandate is found in the standard operating procedures and rules of management bureaucracies. Finally, a social mandate is found in the will of industry and public constituencies. These three mandates are solid testimony that social science belongs in the natural resource management arena.

The status of social science in natural resource management systems is influenced by such factors as the distribution and recruitment of sociological expertise, philosophies of management, agency budgets, and cross-scientific competition, not to mention the severity of social problems attributed to the use of resources.

Employing examples from a mix of natural resource systems, six articles in this section treat the normative and sociological dimensions of applied social science. To introduce these works, we make the following few observations.

The Interactive Process of Applied Research: A Partnership Between Scientists and Park and Resource Managers.

A professional riddle which faces all scientists in natural resource management systems centers on how research might be designed so that it is simultaneously socially meaningful and intellectually rewarding. Sometimes this riddle causes scientists to engage in seemingly interminable, and ultimately unprofitable, debate over whether abstract research is preferable to applied research, or vice versa.

In this article, Donald R. Field and Darryll R. Johnson take a different tack. In their view, the success of a research project fundamentally depends upon a shared understanding of its purpose by researchers and sponsors. While it is uncontroversial that information should flow in both directions between scientists and managers, the Field and Johnson injunction is that communication must occur at all of the four stages of science-research design, data collection, analysis, and write-up.

Natural Resource Sociology: Forests and Marine Fisheries.

Social scientists who work in natural resource management systems consistently find that management bureaucracies strongly endorse the scientific ethic and the concept of a pluralistic applied scientific community. This means that for social science to be productive, its practitioners must learn to work both with managers and with scientists with different specialities.

In this article, Marc L. Miller and Richard P. Gale examine the niches of social science in forest and marine fisheries systems, particularly insofar as these arc influenced by the pervasive themes of professional specialization and executivism. In providing direction to future researchers, these authors stress the importance of promoting sociology as a science, of appreciating the subtle differences between research grants and contracts, and of taking the initiative to disseminate results to multiple audiences.

The Practice and Promise of Social Science in the U.S. Forest Service.

Renowned for its esprit de corps and decentralized authority, the U.S. Forest Service, more than any other natural resource bureaucracy, has been identified with scientific management Moreover, the adaptive behavior of the agency in response to changing social conditions over the last quarter century has been consistently professional. Today, the extraordinary Forest Service Handbook codifies procedures and standards for every conceivable type of applied social science. Lambert N. Wenner shows that this prepares the USFS to communicate with diverse industry groups, "silent publics," and other constituencies; to engage in long-range planning and consensus-building exercises; to conduct complex social impact assessments; and even to recommend mitigation.

Unfortunately, this good news is balanced with the bad news that few in the service have expertise in the social sciences. Lambert fully describes this situation and then is specific in suggesting how the state of the social sciences can be raised to a higher and more socially responsible level.

Integrating Social Science into Wildlife Management.

Ironically, the argument that the social sciences belong in natural resource management systems seems to have greater appeal the further one moves from the management arena. To illustrate, Daniel J. Decker, Tommy L. Brown, and George F. Mattfeld report a tendency of wildlife managers to endlessly seek additional biological and ecological data, while misunderstanding scientific paradigms for the study of human behavior. The Decker et al. conclusion is that any breakdown of this resistance will require the integration of social science into wildlife management curricula. The authors also reiterate our injunction that social scientists of different kinds and in different systems arrange for their professional activities to intersect, and put more energy into the transfer of research results across resource system boundaries.

The Sociology of Science in Natural Resource Management Systems: Observations on Forests and Marine Fisheries in the Pacific Northwest.

Science has contributed much to the understanding of natural resource problems. However, the practice of science is inevitably influenced by the often conflicting social elements of natural resource management systems. Thus, profit-seeking industries, agencies, and organized publics battle over whose science is correct and whose research agenda should be used to resolve resource controversies.

This article by Richard P. Gale and Marc L. Miller describes the basic structure of natural resource science with examples from the federal forest and marine fisheries regimes. In these systems, few opportunities exist for a pure science divorced from resource conflicts. Thus, most science in these systems, whether the focus is production or impacts, is advocacy science. Gale and Miller argue that natural resource research which is attuned to the needs of all constituencies, but which is debated by the rules of science, best informs resource policy.

Social Impact Assessment in New Zealand Resource Management.

Natural resource management is not, of course, a strictly American experiment Numerous nations have now designated elements of government to oversee the use of resources and the protection of the environment. In many of these systems, concern for human problems stemming from resource policies has resulted in formal requirements for the scientific study of social change. In the manner of the Santa Barbara oil spill (1969), a controversial proposal to utilize Lake Manapouri to generate electricity in the late 1960s sparked widespread grass roots support in New Zealand for a revised policy of resource conservation. Subsequently, the Labor Government (1972-1975) instituted a new agency, the Commission for the Environment to incorporate social science in the auditing of Environmental Impact Reports.

In this article, C. Nick Taylor and C. Hobson Bryan point out that social impact assessment in New Zealand and the United States have similar origins. These authors note that the effectiveness (indeed, existence) of the Commission has been greatly shaped by changes in federal administrations. Against the backdrop of a new conservative "free market" economic policy, Taylor and Bryan consider the future of social impact assessment programs in light of a new Ministry for the Environment, and an agenda for new state corporations.

2
The Interactive Process of Applied Research: A Partnership Between Scientists and Park and Resource Managers

Donald R. Field
Department of Resource Recreation Management Oregon State University

Darryll R. Johnson
Cooperative Park Studies Unit College of Forest Resources University of Washington

Regardless of the discipline involved, the person conducting the inquiry, or the setting in which the inquiry occurs, the principles of science are universal. It is appropriate, however, to distinguish between applied and basic research. This distinction is not made with regard to the activity of science, but with regard to the social origin of the inquiry and the goals for which the results of the research are commissioned (Johnson and Field 1981, Hobbs 1969, Rossi et al. 1978). A brief comparison between basic and applied research illustrates this point.

Basic research has as its primary goal the creation of knowledge to advance disciplinary theory and understanding; applied research has as its primary goal the creation of knowledge for problem solving. In short, applied research is mission-oriented. The impetus for basic research is intellectual curiosity, a gap in knowledge, or the personal interests of the scientist, whereas the impetus for applied research is a policy issue, a management or client problem, or program evaluation (Rossi et al. 1978, Johnson and Field 1981, Freeman et al. 1983, Lazarsfeld et al. 1975).

The general orientation of scientific inquiry within public land management agencies, state parks, and forest preserves is applied, and it is usually expected that researchers will embrace a practical or problem-solving orientation. For those scientists (government and university) under contract to such clients, an applied orientation, and the fulfillment of its requisite responsibilities, are essential.

At the heart of applied science is the formation of a partnership between management (client) and scientist That partnership rests upon interaction and communication throughout the research endeavor-from establishing a research agenda to the presentation of the results of research (Figure 1). The purpose of this article is to explore an interactive process that underlies applied science activity and that is essential to the integration of research results into a decision-making process. Such a process includes the following steps: (1) establishing a research agenda, (2) defining the research question, (3) conducting research, and (4) reporting the results of research. The discussion is presented in the context of a public natural resource management agency, but has applicability to any more general administrative audience where science is used in the decision-making process.

Establishing a Research Agenda

The first step in applied science is the joint interaction of the client and the scientist in the definition of a program of research. The ultimate responsibility, however, for defining a research agenda lies with the management of the agency commissioning the research. It may appear inconsistent to suggest initially that research agendas are a product of interaction between scientist and management and then to argue that the responsibility for an agenda rests with management The important word here is "ultimate." In practice, of course, research projects undertaken are a result of a negotiation process, availability of funds, scientific expertise to conduct the research, and so on. Managers will benefit from scientific input on an agenda and should modify priorities accordingly.

Figure 1 Steps in the communication of science to park and resource managers

This ultimate responsibility is fulfilled in a number of ways, but primarily through a planning process that articulates goals and objectives for the area being managed. For example, for each administrative unit of the National Park Service there is a general management plan, an interpretive plan, a resource-management plan, and a visitor-use plan, among others. State and local park units have comparable documents defining management goals and objectives.

With the limited appropriations available to most public agencies, choices must be made about which research projects are funded. If either scientists or managers made the decision on projects independently, the priority list would reflect incomplete analysis, and perhaps be skewed toward long-term research projects (scientific preference), or short-term, crisis-oriented projects (management preference).

The management planning process provides a consistent, logical way to evaluate proposed projects, and to assess how projects will be achieved. Because of a plan, an accumulation of knowledge about the area is being recorded and gaps in the knowledge available for decision making are documented.

Similarly, management planning provides a basis on which decision-makers and scientists can initiate research, monitor social and biological change, and resolve problems. These documents with their research agendas can be modified as research projects are accomplished and information is infused into a park/resource management program. A constant updating of research needs will necessitate regular interaction between scientists and managers as to what a new agenda should be.

The interactive process also provides a forum for discussion about the role of ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• ABOUT THE SERIES
• PREFACE
• I. OVERVIEW
• II. ROLES OF SCIENCE
• III. APPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
• IV. ANALYSES OF INSTITUTIONS
• PROFILES OF THE AUTHORS
• INDEX